I believe it was darien that first showed me the importance of safes as storage WRT a protective factor vs suicides by gun. It is one of the many reasons I promote safe storage laws and have made sure and convinced everyone I know IRL that owns a gun to at least get a basic safe. Do I need to pull a full history for each poster I've ever disagreed with, or is one example a sufficient number for you to work with?

Work with? No, I was just curious about how you were approaching it amid all the bunker mentality posts from the last week. You didn't even have to get specific.

"Bunker mentality posts?"

Yeah, half of the most recent posts have been reasons why X doesn't want to talk to Y.

The Second Amendment was adopted simply because there was a new Nation, barely on it's feet, and it made all the sense in the world to have as many people armed and ready as possible.

You want to call them to arms on occasion as an exercise in readiness, is your powder dry? Do you have enough shot?

OK, good, you can go back to hunting deer, make sure you're available when we send for you.

We don't have to worry about the Brits anymore, especially since we have long since graduated to Nuclear Deterrence and the MAD doctrine.

And yet, nowadays? You need an AR-15, if for no other reason than to be "fashionable". It's fairly pathetic.

This is factually and demonstrably incorrect. The Second amendment was put in place because the Founders did not trust standing armies. However, they recognized that we might need one, so the intent of the Second is to give the citizens of the U.S. a way to resist if the armies were turned on them.

Quote:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Bold mine. In this context, "well-regulated" means that the power of the Militia is kept in check. This is very frequently (and deliberately) mus-interpreted to mean that that firearms only belong to a "well-regulated" militia.

I rambled off track a bit there but the point is, the Second Amendment was the most politically expedient and cost effective means of having a "ready reserve" of armed bodies on hand when the defense of the country was paramount.

You can say they "didn't trust" a standing army, but the facts of life are, if you are going to have and maintain a country at all, you're going to need one, and we ended up getting one anyway. It costs money, which means taxes, and as a new government, they were pretty cash poor at the beginning, so you just get Nathaniel Colonist and all his buddies who already have weapons and ask them if they will serve their country as a militia when the need arises, which of course they would agree to since any invasion by a foreign power at that point would have represented an existential threat to everyone.

I believe it was darien that first showed me the importance of safes as storage WRT a protective factor vs suicides by gun

But not other residents or visitors getting ahold of them and shooting people or property? The problem I have with your customs is that my country has what I consider mostly reasonable requirements for getting and keeping a license to own and buy firearms, re: training, storage, and they get enforced without taking away anyone's guns who actually deserved to keep any guns, but the US attitude is that you can buy guns as a birthright, and can sell someone a gun regardless of what their (lack of) thoughts are regarding safety once they get it. For example, I can cringe at celebratory gunfire in Afghanistan and other places on youtube and say, well, that's the third world and they are actively fighting something of a war so laws and society have broken down, but apparently that's a thing in parts of the US South, too, where it's just idiots showing everyone their rights. I think treating it as a right is a problem, and apparently you're willing to require training to get a firearms license to buy firearms, and then proper storage to keep them, but the manufacturer lobby NRA's hold on the GOP is not. Calling my position unwilling to compromise, ratcheting up gun control/a slippery slope, coming for your guns, etc. is common in this thread, too. The 2A as written makes no sense, with clauses that are logically and linguistically but not legally related, and you apparently are incapable of amending any fix to clear that up, but requiring a license is probably where you'd have to go in part just to change your attitudes towards guns, which is probably the root of the problems you have with guns. People owning a gun only because it's their right is common, but it's a ridiculous practice and a risk you don't mitigate, because everyone has that right but not everyone should have a gun or knows how to keep one without hurting someone.

I believe it was darien that first showed me the importance of safes as storage WRT a protective factor vs suicides by gun

But not other residents or visitors getting ahold of them and shooting people or property?

I didn't know I needed to give an exhaustive list of the benefits of safes.

Quote:

The problem I have with your customs is that my country

Can you put it in your tribus? Or mention it?

Quote:

has what I consider mostly reasonable requirements for getting and keeping a license to own and buy firearms, re: training, storage, and they get enforced without taking away anyone's guns who actually deserved to keep any guns,

Such as?

Quote:

but the US attitude is that you can buy guns as a birthright, and can sell someone a gun regardless of what their (lack of) thoughts are regarding safety once they get it. For example, I can cringe at celebratory gunfire in Afghanistan and other places on youtube and say, well, that's the third world and they are actively fighting something of a war so laws and society have broken down, but apparently that's a thing in parts of the US South, too, where it's just idiots showing everyone their rights. I think treating it as a right is a problem, and apparently you're willing to require training to get a firearms license to buy firearms, and then storage to keep them, but the US is not.

The laws are different in each state. You can't paint the whole country with the same brush by pointing at actions in "the south."

You are not debating or discussing in good faith, at all. You insult gun owners for not compromising. Then go around and say you do not want to compromise, you want everything. And insult gun owners

I didn't say gun owners, so anything else you were saying is irrelevant.

I said gun fantasists.

Any more cutesy names you want to create so you can say you "aren't talking about gun owners" when you are in fact talking about gun owners?

Making distinctions between different members of the same identity group. It's a lot more comfortable to think that there is a fringe and a mainstream to any group, even if you disagree with the whole. I may not agree with someone who keeps a handgun in their bedroom "for protection", but they are a lot easier to talk to if we can both shake our heads at open carry proponents

What makes you think you need to shake your head at open carry proponents? I haven't seen your issues with that posted so far. Please, go into more detail as to why you think you can shake your head at them.

And when will you shake your head at the more extreme GCAs in this thread?

"The NYT editorial is wrong because somebody at CNN got some specifics wrong!"

I see no fallacies there.

Of course, if we take what you say Michael Creighton [sic] says about the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect as a good rule of thumb, we should now disregard everything you say since you're clearly not capable of formulating any coherent arguments based on that display of fallacious thinking and your inability to remember somebody's name.

And that's just it. Over and over we see the examples of what could be called "gun geeks" freaking out because someone called a magazine a clip or some such.

So, since they can't get the technical terms right, they are not qualified to even talk about anything involving firearms and their regulation. Call this the "Freedom, it is Yang worship word, you will not speak it" syndrome.

Forget about all the dead people, if you can't differentiate between 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP, Hardball or JHP, you have no right entering the discussion to begin with.

A pile of dead bodies? Don't know the muzzle velocity and foot pounds of energy of the ammo that killed them? GTFO.

Don't forget the misuse of other terms like 'confiscation' when it suits their argument. For a depressing amount of gun rights supporters in this thread, technical accuracy only matters when it suits them.

"The NYT editorial is wrong because somebody at CNN got some specifics wrong!"

I see no fallacies there.

Of course, if we take what you say Michael Creighton [sic] says about the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect as a good rule of thumb, we should now disregard everything you say since you're clearly not capable of formulating any coherent arguments based on that display of fallacious thinking and your inability to remember somebody's name.

And that's just it. Over and over we see the examples of what could be called "gun geeks" freaking out because someone called a magazine a clip or some such.

So, since they can't get the technical terms right, they are not qualified to even talk about anything involving firearms and their regulation. Call this the "Freedom, it is Yang worship word, you will not speak it" syndrome.

Forget about all the dead people, if you can't differentiate between 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP, Hardball or JHP, you have no right entering the discussion to begin with.

A pile of dead bodies? Don't know the muzzle velocity and foot pounds of energy of the ammo that killed them? GTFO.

Don't forget the misuse of other terms like 'confiscation' when it suits their argument. For a depressing amount of gun rights supporters in this thread, technical accuracy only matters when it suits them.

Because GCAs are the paragons of technical accuracy...

GRAs care about the technical accuracy of terms that tend to end up in law, because, well, the law will affect them.

GCAs care about the term "confiscation" being "misused" because they want to engage in pedant games to avoid being called out on the functional result of something they are pushing at the time.

It seems that the cultural "touchstone" for the use of the term "confiscation" always goes back to the 1994 AWB, which didn't confiscate anything, but does provide a rather handy slippery slope argument.

The sad part about that NYT front page editorial is, while they are dead on in their characterization of the problem, in the last paragraph their suggested solution is: another assault weapons ban.

How disappointing. I fear we have painted ourselves into a corner with the gun violence problem in this country, the entirety of the Law of Unintended Consequences over a tiny piece of law written over 200 years ago is kicking us in the face repeatedly, and we don't know what to do about it.

The solution is obvious: Amend the Constitution, but at this point in time, it would be more politically feasible to start a colony on Mars.

It seems that the cultural "touchstone" for the use of the term "confiscation" always goes back to the 1994 AWB, which didn't confiscate anything, but does provide a rather handy slippery slope argument.

The sad part about that NYT front page editorial is, while they are dead on in their characterization of the problem, in the last paragraph their suggested solution is: another assault weapons ban.

How disappointing. I fear we have painted ourselves into a corner with the gun violence problem in this country, the entirety of the Law of Unintended Consequences over a tiny piece of law written over 200 years ago is kicking us in the face repeatedly, and we don't know what to do about it.

The solution is obvious: Amend the Constitution, but at this point in time, it would be more politically feasible to start a colony on Mars.

Or the SKS confiscation, the recent attempts in CA on gun magazines, the Katrina confiscations, etc.

Making distinctions between different members of the same identity group. It's a lot more comfortable to think that there is a fringe and a mainstream to any group, even if you disagree with the whole. I may not agree with someone who keeps a handgun in their bedroom "for protection", but they are a lot easier to talk to if we can both shake our heads at open carry proponents

What makes you think you need to shake your head at open carry proponents? I haven't seen your issues with that posted so far. Please, go into more detail as to why you think you can shake your head at them.

And when will you shake your head at the more extreme GCAs in this thread?

Because the people you are referring to aren't scary to me. It's a human thing. We all have biases and blind spots and we can be insightful in other areas. It's part of what makes this discussion interesting.

It seems that the cultural "touchstone" for the use of the term "confiscation" always goes back to the 1994 AWB, which didn't confiscate anything, but does provide a rather handy slippery slope argument.

The sad part about that NYT front page editorial is, while they are dead on in their characterization of the problem, in the last paragraph their suggested solution is: another assault weapons ban.

How disappointing. I fear we have painted ourselves into a corner with the gun violence problem in this country, the entirety of the Law of Unintended Consequences over a tiny piece of law written over 200 years ago is kicking us in the face repeatedly, and we don't know what to do about it.

The solution is obvious: Amend the Constitution, but at this point in time, it would be more politically feasible to start a colony on Mars.

Or the SKS confiscation, the recent attempts in CA on gun magazines, the Katrina confiscations, etc.

And, no offense meant, but this entire mentality is why I say we either amend the Constitution or go live on Mars. Well, maybe Europe is cheaper, at least it's got a Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere, but then you'll be an unarmed sitting duck. OK, Mars it is.

Now we just have to raise some taxes, or wait on people like Elon Musk or Branson to get their act together.

Forgot to ask, which confiscations are you referring to? SKS to me means the Chinese version of the Kalashnikov (?), when did this happen? CA with magazines? They confiscated them? Katrina? That place was utter chaos in the midst of natural disaster, I wouldn't be surprised by anything that happened there including murder.

MMGT, is there a single person in this thread who you disagree with and have not also said more or less the same thing to?

Link, please, and clarify which "same thing" you are referring to.

Have you ever learned anything or at least rethought anything via someone here who you disagree with? The same question could be asked to anyone in this discussion. I'm just curious.

Yes, I went from a neutral, "let's just try to find some rational middle ground guy" to a full fledged, "I don't have a problem with guns but I'm not convinced there is anyone in the country rational and emotionally intelligent enough to be allowed to use them."

This change in position is entirely because of the content of the two gun threads here at ARS.

MMGT, is there a single person in this thread who you disagree with and have not also said more or less the same thing to?

Link, please, and clarify which "same thing" you are referring to.

Have you ever learned anything or at least rethought anything via someone here who you disagree with? The same question could be asked to anyone in this discussion. I'm just curious.

Yes, I went from a neutral, "let's just try to find some rational middle ground guy" to a full fledged, "I don't have a problem with guns but I'm not convinced there is anyone in the country rational and emotionally intelligent enough to be allowed to use them."

This change in position is entirely because of the content of the two gun threads here at ARS.

Your first posts on the subject that I could find in 2008 involved you ranting about paranoid gun owners and just giving everyone nukes. The rest of your post history is scattered with plenty of examples of decidedly NOT looking for middle ground on the topic.

To expand on the "changed my viewpoint/outlook" thing... This very forum changed my viewpoint from pro to con on the death penalty.

Me too on that front. I was quite honestly shocked at just how badly our justice system actually works to even begin justifying a death penalty, especially after seeing the list of just how many innocents have been killed with it

To expand on the "changed my viewpoint/outlook" thing... This very forum changed my viewpoint from pro to con on the death penalty.

Me too on that front. I was quite honestly shocked at just how badly our justice system actually works to even begin justifying a death penalty, especially after seeing the list of just how many innocents have been killed with it

Me three.I would add that I am not totally against it, there are cases where guilt is not in doubt, and the world would be better off without the offender, but that is much more rare than how the policy is usually used.There just are not that many Ted Bundys in the world.

Two television entrepreneurs in California think they have just what America needs: a 24-hour shopping channel for guns.

Using the tag line “Live Shopping. Fully Loaded,” GunTV aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching blenders and face-firming lotions and adapt it to the sale of “a vast array of firearms,” as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios.

The project is the brainchild of Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, two home shopping industry veterans based in Rancho Mirage, Calif., who saw what looked to them like an untapped market.

GunTV said it expected to debut Jan. 20 via national satellite and cable television providers. It will begin by airing just six hours a day, then plans to ramp up to 24 hours a day by the beginning of 2017.

I prefer to order or buy from vendors I wish to support, not a 24/7 televised shopping network. However, if there is a market for this, more power to them.And I must re-iterate that any firearms sold via the TV channel will still have to follow all applicable laws, such as being transferred via the local licensed dealer, with NICS check, and whatever state laws that apply will also be followed as well as a result. Unless it is black powder related, then it can be shipped right to the door of the purchaser.

So long as background checks are done I don't see what the problem is.

Poor taste, perhaps, but it isn't like guns are hard to get for those who are allowed to own guns. Not in any state of the US.

Two television entrepreneurs in California think they have just what America needs: a 24-hour shopping channel for guns.

Using the tag line “Live Shopping. Fully Loaded,” GunTV aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching blenders and face-firming lotions and adapt it to the sale of “a vast array of firearms,” as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios.

The project is the brainchild of Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, two home shopping industry veterans based in Rancho Mirage, Calif., who saw what looked to them like an untapped market.

GunTV said it expected to debut Jan. 20 via national satellite and cable television providers. It will begin by airing just six hours a day, then plans to ramp up to 24 hours a day by the beginning of 2017.

I prefer to order or buy from vendors I wish to support, not a 24/7 televised shopping network. However, if there is a market for this, more power to them.And I must re-iterate that any firearms sold via the TV channel will still have to follow all applicable laws, such as being transferred via the local licensed dealer, with NICS check, and whatever state laws that apply will also be followed as well as a result. Unless it is black powder related, then it can be shipped right to the door of the purchaser.

So long as background checks are done I don't see what the problem is.

Poor taste, perhaps, but it isn't like guns are hard to get for those who are allowed to own guns. Not in any state of the US.

Two television entrepreneurs in California think they have just what America needs: a 24-hour shopping channel for guns.

Using the tag line “Live Shopping. Fully Loaded,” GunTV aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching blenders and face-firming lotions and adapt it to the sale of “a vast array of firearms,” as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios.

The project is the brainchild of Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, two home shopping industry veterans based in Rancho Mirage, Calif., who saw what looked to them like an untapped market.

GunTV said it expected to debut Jan. 20 via national satellite and cable television providers. It will begin by airing just six hours a day, then plans to ramp up to 24 hours a day by the beginning of 2017.

I prefer to order or buy from vendors I wish to support, not a 24/7 televised shopping network. However, if there is a market for this, more power to them.And I must re-iterate that any firearms sold via the TV channel will still have to follow all applicable laws, such as being transferred via the local licensed dealer, with NICS check, and whatever state laws that apply will also be followed as well as a result. Unless it is black powder related, then it can be shipped right to the door of the purchaser.

So long as background checks are done I don't see what the problem is.

Poor taste, perhaps, but it isn't like guns are hard to get for those who are allowed to own guns. Not in any state of the US.

Well, whatever is necessary to the "security of a free state".

And given how the argument that guns actually make us LESS safe and INFRINGE the right to life has been ignored since the straw man attack against it was quietly abandoned, I hope the sarcasm in that comment was universally acknowledged as deserving by all posters here.

Kind of like how the numerous studies and data about gun laws reducing gun deaths provided by a few people since at least the time I jumped into the thread have been quietly ignored, once the fallacious attacks against them were likewise quietly abandoned. Which, by default, cedes the claim that gun laws don't work.

So what do the gun rights advocates in here have left to say? Once their bad arguments are abandoned it's pretty quiet.

Yes, I went from a neutral, "let's just try to find some rational middle ground guy" to a full fledged, "I don't have a problem with guns but I'm not convinced there is anyone in the country rational and emotionally intelligent enough to be allowed to use them."

Given the massive number of guns in the US and relatively low rate of murders and accidents I am not sure how you could have arrived at that conclusion/

Yes, I went from a neutral, "let's just try to find some rational middle ground guy" to a full fledged, "I don't have a problem with guns but I'm not convinced there is anyone in the country rational and emotionally intelligent enough to be allowed to use them."

Given the massive number of guns in the US and relatively low rate of murders and accidents I am not sure how you could have arrived at that conclusion/

How did you get "relatively low rate of murders" when firearms are the #1 weapon used in homicides?

Yes, I went from a neutral, "let's just try to find some rational middle ground guy" to a full fledged, "I don't have a problem with guns but I'm not convinced there is anyone in the country rational and emotionally intelligent enough to be allowed to use them."

Given the massive number of guns in the US and relatively low rate of murders and accidents I am not sure how you could have arrived at that conclusion/

How did you get "relatively low rate of murders" when firearms are the #1 weapon used in homicides?

Official moderation notice.

There's been too much poor debating - if you can even call it that - in this thread over the last week. We understand that this is a volatile topic, but we expect people to try to rein in their personal attacks, snide comments, and thread shitting. That hasn't happened.

The entire Soap Box Moderation team has agreed - this thread has outlived its usefulness, and is a detriment to the entire Soap Box. So the thread is being locked, and there will be a moratorium on further discussion on the matter for at least one week.

Some of you really need to take a close look at how many OWs you've already gotten, some of which are from this thread, and reflect on your posting styles. You've gotten off from further OWs this week simply because we're tired of dealing with all this shit. This thread is too toxic to be allowed to continue as it's going right now.